After Pentium 4 HT - Page 3 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > Monitors, Printers and Peripherals
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 12-22-2004, 06:30 PM   #21 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 862
Send a message via AIM to Megadeth2 Send a message via Yahoo to Megadeth2
Default

Codeine, you may have problem. Benchmarks speak for themselves when they are gaming benchmarks. Intel is better at everything, but gaming. Even AMD users have acknowledged the fact that AMD is better at gaming only.
__________________

Megadeth2 is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 06:31 PM   #22 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 264
Send a message via AIM to Rizinc4
Default

Nothing personal, I looked at facts, drew a conclusion, and simply decided Intel was the better company!
__________________

Rizinc4 is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 06:32 PM   #23 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 862
Send a message via AIM to Megadeth2 Send a message via Yahoo to Megadeth2
Default

Intel is a better company for my purposes since I do alot of animation and use alot of power apps.
Megadeth2 is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 06:42 PM   #24 (permalink)
Master Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,088
Default

Yes i know, i dont mean to come off aggressive.
__________________
Finished With TF.
Codeine is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 06:47 PM   #25 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,432
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Rizinc4
Nothing personal, I looked at facts, drew a conclusion, and simply decided Intel was the better company!
Well thats your opinion, but statistics and fact speak for themselves

AMD is thrashing Intel, the AMD64 is just plain a better chip

You can look at the majority of users surrounding you right here in this forum and see how many are AMD users, are recommending AMD and how many are switching to AMD. Intel has lost and is losing customers and market share by the day and yes they are scrambling.... to beat AMD No, they may not be scrambling to a 64 bit CPU, but they are scrambling to gain an edge, whether it be thru dual core's, or whatever But they are in a deep whole and having AMD release their dual core first doesn't bode well for Intel and they will need a miracle to beat AMD with a dual core

I don't think Intel can beat AMD at AMD's game, they have to take alternate strategy, just as they did with P4, AMD kept the pipeline short and clock speeds down, while Intel did exactly the opposite and for awhile creamed AMD....until AMD one upped Intel with their AMD64 that had an onboard memory controller Intel can't just lob on a memory controller or 64 bit extensions to win this war, they have to make a quantum leap further, and as they seem to have proved...you can't just take on cache
__________________

<marquee scrollamount=4 bgcolor=\"#000000\">Desktop: 3.0ghz HT 800fsb P4, Chaintech 9CJS Zenith, 2x 512mb GEIL Dual Channel DDR400, 80gb 7200rpm ATA HD, Sapphire X800 XT Platinum Edition, Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS, Logitech Z-5300e 5.1 THX Speakers, Turbolink 420watt PSU, Black 19\" Orion Monitor, Logitech MX Duo and Win XP Home</marquee>
<marquee scrollamount=4 bgcolor=\"#000000\">My Wishlist: 74gb 10K SATA Western Digital Raptor...</marquee>
The Merlin is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 06:51 PM   #26 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 264
Send a message via AIM to Rizinc4
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by The Merlin
Well thats your opinion, but statistics and fact speak for themselves
The fact is, SSE3 isn't available with AMD chips, the fact is AMD STILL had to purchase the MMX rights from Intel! These are FACTS, and far from opinion...
Rizinc4 is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 07:50 PM   #27 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 250
Default

Quote:
Intel is better at everything, but gaming. Even AMD users have acknowledged the fact that AMD is better at gaming only.
where'd you get that smart idea megadeth. If you look at the benchmark comparing the Fx-55 vs 3.4 EE, amd took half of the programs and all of gaming compared to where 3.4 EE took half in program and none in gaming. AMD has caught up to intel in programs other than gaming. If you want to fight over benchmarks, and say amd is only good for gaming look at it yourself. I bet you never have ever looked at benchmarks and said that because that's what everybody says and are only tangled up in the past.

Quote:
These are FACTS, and far from opinion...
If you really want facts, here are somf facts.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2004...4_4000-03.html

the title tells you everything
"AMD's Athlon64 4000 and FX-55: Nails in the P4 EE's Coffin?"

They're both the best of the best for both companies for now and when you look at it, the fx-55 is still 200 cheaper then the overpriced intel logo addition.

if you're a person who never clicks on links people provide for you for evidence here are some quotes.

Quote:
When it comes to games and multimedia, the FX-55 gains even more lead over the P4 processor family, beating the Extreme Edition in 3DMark, Doom 3, Far Cry, Unreal Tournament 2004 and Wolfenstein ET. These are also precisely the applications for which the P4 EE and the Athlon FX are designed
Yeah. that's right. Can't even catch up. They were both made for those applicans but fx is still whoopingly better.


Quote:
Now, we see that the new FX-55 at 2.6 GHz is able to close most of the remaining gaps in the Pentium 4's performance lead for MPEG-2, MPEG-4 or MP3 encoding as well as the video editing software Studio 9 and is almost head to head with the Pentium 4 Processor 560 or the Extreme Edition at 3.4 GHz.
they're almost equal now in programming and it.s like 40% better in gaming. If one is cheaper then the other by a whooping $200, what would you get?. Even an idiot who doesn't know anything about computers can figure that out, unless you're stubborn.
__________________
<img src=http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/users/41b40799z1e7cbc64/2a2b/__sr_/8c8d.jpg?phCsRuBB.0_pqmvX>
geo3tech is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 08:04 PM   #28 (permalink)
ID.10T
 
ohGrFreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Midwest in tha houzze
Posts: 1,657
Send a message via AIM to ohGrFreak Send a message via Yahoo to ohGrFreak
Default

Originally posted by geo3tech:
If you look at the benchmark comparing the Fx-55 vs 3.4 EE, amd took half of the programs and all of gaming compared to where 3.4 EE took half in program and none in gaming. AMD has caught up to intel in programs other than gaming. If you want to fight over benchmarks, and say amd is only good for gaming look at it yourself. I bet you never have ever looked at benchmarks and said that because that's what everybody says and are only tangled up in the past.


^^that's true, i have that very article in a maximum PC i have. AMD stomped the intel at most apps not just games.
__________________
ohGrFreak is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 08:06 PM   #29 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 136
Default

heres something to think about though. the windows xp requirements
Quote:
PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended

• 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)

• 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*

• Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor

• CD-ROM or DVD drive

• Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
i know this is weird that i bring this up, but i just want to point out that companys are still thinking about people with 10 year old computers. i doubt companys say to themselves, "hey look. there are now 64-bit processors. they are better and newer then 32-bit CPU's. The software we make from now on are going to be for the new technology, 64-bit CPU's!"... even though only 2% of computer owners have one

i imagine 32-bit CPUs will still have plenty of software for it being made in 2012 and beyond. even when 85% of people have 64-bit CPU's, 15% of the market is still a huge amount. there may be 32-bit and 64-bit versions of software or even dual compatiblity that is opitimized for 64-bit CPUs....
quartz01 is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 08:12 PM   #30 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 616
Send a message via AIM to OnlyCurious Send a message via Yahoo to OnlyCurious
Default

all i gotta say is... it's all about business... companies want money
__________________

__________________
Use my advice at your own risk.

My rig:
CoolerMaster Centurion 5
SamSung 20" LCD
Intel E6750 @ 2.66Ghz
Gigabyte p35-ds3r
Patriot Extreme 2gb 4-4-4-12
Sapphire X1950XT 256mb
Samsung 500gb @ 7200
PSU Xclio GreatPower 550W
Samsung DVD Burner
Logitec X-230 2.1
OnlyCurious is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.